| | Hello everybody. I start to upload my portfolio in Crestock and for my surprise I have 160 rejected images and only one image acepted. I feel very disappointed with this situation because I have the same portfolio in two important microstock sites fully aproved and the images sell very well. So, I decided to stop trying upload images in this site. Its a shame. Greetings and sory my poor english. |
| | I'm very new here and also had my first batch upload of 50 with only 1 accepted. I've been reading a lot of very similar cases here where people have had a huge amount of rejections, especially where they have been accepted on other great stock sites. I have also read and experienced that photographs which were rejected on other sites were the one or two lucky ones which were accepted here – talk about quality control. It seems to me like a team of people have designed and created this great website then accepted a few images with their expert eye and rested. They "may" have celebrated with a bottle of cheap bubbles and a bowl of nuts & raisins – then hired an average IT person running the show using automated software which is really crap! I have read very very few positive things about crestock since I have joined – and that's coming from the website forums itself. It's like the parents have gone on holiday leaving the kids behind to cause havoc and abandon ship. crestock will crumble if it keeps this poor form up. It needs to relieve the sweaty IT technician from his overheating server room, and replace his unsuccessful efforts with some real and fair inspectors. |
| | I have no idea what criteria is in this website! I consider myself lucky because from 13 images I got one image accepted, but I dont consider this particular one the best of all of them.I also wish somebody sent me an explanation why other images were rejected. And why the rejection list still has old rejected images, they should be deleted long time ago . I will see how it goes , but I am thinking that there is some favoritism on this site. Or it is n ot functioning as it should. Buyers are looking for many different images, but on this site everything looks like Photo Shop created with those artificially looking figures and little dazzl dizzles and sparkles all over.I assume that they sell for notebooks etc, but why discriminate other photography? |
| | Amarillis and artistar: it is, and always will be, very hard to get images shot with non-SLR cameras (compacts and 'super-zooms') accepted at Crestock. The technical quality such cameras offer is simply not as good as what you get with even the simplest digital SLR. Amarillis: there should be explanations for all rejections underneath the image previews in the 'rejected images' sections of your upload folder (only for images submitted after 2007). In your case the rejection reasons will often be artifacts/compression flaws or other technical issues related to the files produced by your camera. Thumbnails of rejected images remain on file permanently as a reference. Woody_nz: no images submitted to Crestock are ever accepted or rejected by automated software, they are all inspected by real people. Like any other human being, they sometimes make mistakes, but we do try to learn from our mistakes and continually improve inspection fairness and consistency. |
| | I keep reading this "non-SLR cameras" reasoning, but we are here at Crestock and nowhere else people are complaining about such unreasonable rejections. Why on earth was this one rejected, for example? This site keeps annoying - sorry - amazing me. 
|
| | Yepp. It makes sense. These guys are not serious. You can see that on their own "newsreel" about the "april joke" to Microsoft. Serious businesses does not do such things. It is obvious that this is some kind of sandbox for a group of teenagers with good web design skills.
I bail out of here before this shit hits the fan. Its no use to waste time here when you can sell your stuff elsewhere. Remember happy suppliers are equally important as happy customers. |
| |
[Last Modified:
2/28/2009 1:19:25 AM]
|
| | Jeffbanke ~ I think your images look great (although I cant see them at 100% or know what Crestock rejected them for) I think the color looks really great and great composition. i would say they look better than alot of images I see on this site. They are definately sellable. |
| | Jeff, that's exactly what frustrates me here. I agree with lephotography. And I know Jeff's photos from other sites and they are great. How must he feel when all his better photos are not amongst the accepted ones (just 7 images in his Crestock portfolio now)... I hope you don't mind me saying this Jeff, I'll edit it if you do mind. The reviewers here have a knack for rejecting someone's better or better selling photos. Plus the quantity of the rejections is absolutely ridiculous. I've written a lot about this in the forums, expressing my views with real reasoning, but never got an answer, not counting the time when some of my rejected photos were accepted subsequently. Well, I suppose they don't have an answer anyway. 
[Last Modified:
2/28/2009 4:50:06 PM]
|
| | There seems to be a trend here for people to only get one image accepted at a time. Perhaps there is a reviewer or two who thinks that reviewing entails merely picking the best image of a batch and accepting that one. Except it rarely seems to be the best one that is accepted.... |
| | Jeff, that's exactly what frustrates me here. I agree with lephotography. And I know Jeff's photos from other sites and they are great. How must he feel when all his better photos are not amongst the accepted ones (just 7 images in his Crestock portfolio now)... I hope you don't mind me saying this Jeff, I'll edit it if you do mind. The reviewers here have a knack for rejecting someone's better or better selling photos. Plus the quantity of the rejections is absolutely ridiculous. I've written a lot about this in the forums, expressing my views with real reasoning, but never got an answer, not counting the time when some of my rejected photos were accepted subsequently. Well, I suppose they don't have an answer anyway.
I do not mind at all my freind! |
| | Hello jeffbanke, I think you should better examine your images more exactly. The photo with the girl there a color variations on skin. On the photo with the wall there is a wrong yellow colour which maybe because of jpeg compression. The firearm and cravate or tie on the other photo maybe a protected design. So you must do your homework on colour, copyright etcetera guys! Maybe your photos aren't simply as good as you think? I suggest you to join a photoclub to learn the basics once more and then reapply! This stock images database isn't for beginners! thanks |
| | I got the same problem. My pictures have been selected by many other microstock sites and here they're rejected so easily. I don't see any standard on parameters they use. For my opinion depends to who is sat on the chair in front of the monitor and about his/her mood of the day. Usually they always have taken more than one week to evaluate a picture, but today i've uploaded 14 pictures and in less than 2 /two) hours they've been evaluated and rejected. For some i can understand (maybe) abt the criteria and the reason why they say they have rejected the files, but for some i really don't understand. Example: they told me that for 2 pictures abt a close-up of a papaya salad they have many images similar to that, but indeed they don't have any, i repeat, ANY papaya salad picture. So, where is the reason? Before to upload i always search for similar pictures, by key tags, to don't waste time. I spend a lot of time to choose my best shots, i check them to see if ther is some noise or if are blur and so on. They also don't count how long time we spend on them to add the tags, and sometimes we spend hours between the uploading and the submission. For some of us this is an hobby where to earn (or try to) few money when possible, and we spend our free time doing this giving them the most of the earnings on our images, we take just the crumbs, so they should understand a bit more abt who there is behind the contributor profile. Normally to give them the exclusive i upload the picture on crestock first and if they are selected, i don't upload the same on other microstocks. On the contrary if rejected i post them to others, but most of the times they are (at 90%) approved by the others. So, can i have a perfect explanation of the evaluation criteria abt the "similar images" they say they have but that they don't have? |
| | Hello jeffbanke, I think you should better examine your images more exactly. The photo with the girl there a color variations on skin. On the photo with the wall there is a wrong yellow colour which maybe because of jpeg compression. The firearm and cravate or tie on the other photo maybe a protected design. So you must do your homework on colour, copyright etcetera guys! Maybe your photos aren't simply as good as you think? I suggest you to join a photoclub to learn the basics once more and then reapply! This stock images database isn't for beginners! thanks Unbelievable!  LOL! |
| | Pic 1... The image was rejected for the following reason(s):
- Unfortunately this image does not quite meet the creative or aesthetic standards of Crestock. This could also be due to us having too many images similar to this.
Pic 2... The image was rejected for the following reason(s):
- Unfortunately this image does not quite meet the creative or aesthetic standards of Crestock. This could also be due to us having too many images similar to this.
Pic 3... The image was rejected for the following reason(s):
- Unfortunately this image does not quite meet the creative or aesthetic standards of Crestock. This could also be due to us having too many images similar to this.
Pic 4... The image was rejected for the following reason(s):
Pic 5...
| The image was rejected for the following reason(s):
Pic 6... The image was rejected for the following reason(s):
WHY HAVE NONE OF MY PICTURES BEEN ACCEPTED? They always give me a different excuse | | |
| | I'm as frustrated as the rest of you that are commenting on the rejections. I know Jeff's work from SS and he's an outstanding photographer. I know his gripes are legitimate. I spent a lot of time uploading the same images that are making me money on other sites only to have them rejected here. So, for the 2 that were accepted so far it would take a lot more uploading, and rejections, and hope I sell enough to make me enough for a cup of coffee. I guess Crestock expects Macrostock quality at $.25 subscription costs. Good luck with that. My time is certainly worth way way more than to put up with this nonsense. I think I will go bang my head against the wall instead because it feels sooooooo good when I stop. Cheers. Wayne G |
| | Yeah, I'm bailing, too. If Crestock can show me a relaxed standard and proof that they actually look at the images, I'll reconsider. If they can show me that there is ROI for all the time spent trying to get images online, much less sold, I might reconsider in spite of the foolishly high "standards". While my images are selling elsewhere, I won't be spending any more time trying to get them exposed, here. Bye guys. |
| | yup same here, very high rejections, obviously CS is not for me. No problem, its thier choice. good luck |
| | Woody_nz: no images submitted to Crestock are ever accepted or rejected by automated software, they are all inspected by real people. Like any other human being, they sometimes make mistakes, but we do try to learn from our mistakes and continually improve inspection fairness and consistency. I doubt. Maybe some files checked by persons, but my first submission was checked within 2 minutes after uploading. I don't think somebody just waited exactly my uploads or haven't any other files in the line waiting. 12 seconds for inspecting image for quality of isolation and cleaning background and the same time for exposure... Also, what here does it means "over or under" exposed if hitogramms show proper exposure.... And one more... Maybe somebody can explain me - if I converted RAW to JPG and save it only once at best quality, how this image get "artifacts or compression".... Equipment used for this shot is Canon 5D with Canon-L lense shot at 100 ISO. For my amateur knowledge it is miracle. |
| | I also got another batch rejected completely. I guess I should try harder to get better images :D. We'll see. Now I have better equipment to produce better photos and more experience than 1-1.5 years ago, when I stopped uploading to microstock sites. I will try with a new batch from the next shoot. I hope that it won't be rejected again for unreasonable causes. |
